Intersectional.

Intersectional thinking is an analytical framework primarily developed in social theory and activism, which examines how various social identities (e.g., race, gender, class, sexuality, ability) interact with systems of oppression, privilege, and discrimination. It provides a more nuanced understanding of human experiences by recognizing that people’s identities are complex and that systems of power shape these experiences in interlocking ways.

When contrasting intersectional thinking with directional thinking, contemporary thinking, and their application in academia, research, and business, several key differences emerge:

1. Academia

• Directional Thinking:
  • Focus: Typically goal-oriented, with specific academic objectives, such as pursuing a particular research hypothesis or mastering a subject area.
  • Limitation: May overlook how multiple dimensions of identity (e.g., race, gender) intersect to influence academic experiences.
• Contemporary Thinking:
  • Focus: Reflects modern-day shifts in education and research, including embracing new ideas or interdisciplinary fields.
  • Limitation: While flexible and adaptive, contemporary thinking might still miss deeper systemic inequalities unless explicitly examined through an intersectional lens.
• Intersectional Thinking:
  • Focus: Explores how various social identities affect academic access, representation, and success, especially within marginalized groups.
  • Application: In academia, intersectional thinking pushes for inclusivity, calling for diverse perspectives in curriculum design, hiring practices, and research topics, emphasizing the complex interactions between identity and educational outcomes.
  • Example: Understanding how race and gender together affect a student’s ability to thrive in academic spaces, rather than viewing these aspects in isolation.

2. Research

• Directional Thinking:
  • Focus: Clear, structured goals, often following a linear process, such as hypothesis testing in scientific research.
  • Limitation: May miss important societal or identity-based variables that influence research outcomes, particularly in social sciences.
• Contemporary Thinking:
  • Focus: Encourages embracing current trends and innovations, including cross-disciplinary collaboration and research methods.
  • Limitation: Although it fosters flexibility and adaptation, it might not fully account for the complex, intersecting social factors that can affect research outcomes.
• Intersectional Thinking:
  • Focus: Examines how research subjects are affected by overlapping systems of inequality (e.g., race, class, gender).
  • Application: Intersectional thinking would be crucial in research that seeks to understand social phenomena by ensuring that multiple identity categories are considered, such as how healthcare disparities manifest differently for women of color versus men.
  • Example: A health study on heart disease may yield different results when factoring in how race, socioeconomic status, and gender combine to influence healthcare access and outcomes.

3. Business

• Directional Thinking:
  • Focus: Strategic and goal-oriented, typically used for setting clear business objectives and achieving operational efficiency.
  • Limitation: It may not sufficiently recognize the importance of inclusivity or how diversity impacts organizational success or employee well-being.
• Contemporary Thinking:
  • Focus: Encourages innovation and adaptability, reflecting modern trends like corporate social responsibility (CSR) or sustainability.
  • Limitation: Though progressive, contemporary business thinking might still treat diversity or inclusion superficially unless an intersectional framework is applied.
• Intersectional Thinking:
  • Focus: Considers how multiple identity factors (gender, race, disability, etc.) affect both consumers and employees, ensuring equitable treatment and representation in business practices.
  • Application: Intersectional thinking in business would involve comprehensive diversity and inclusion strategies, recognizing how different groups experience work environments, leadership opportunities, and customer relations differently based on their intersecting identities.
  • Example: A company’s DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) program that addresses not just gender diversity but also looks at how women of different races, socioeconomic statuses, or abilities experience discrimination differently within the workplace.

Contrast with Intersectional Thinking:

1. Focus:

• Directional Thinking: Focuses on a singular goal or outcome, often ignoring the nuanced factors of identity that could impact success or failure.
• Contemporary Thinking: Adaptable and flexible, open to modern ideas but still potentially overlooking the complexity of social identities unless specifically designed to consider them.
• Intersectional Thinking: Always foregrounds complexity by considering how various social identities intersect to influence experiences and outcomes. It’s inherently multidimensional and anti-reductionist.

2. Approach to Complexity:

• Directional Thinking: Often simplifies complexity to stay on track toward a predetermined goal.
• Contemporary Thinking: Adapts to complexities that arise from modern trends or changing environments but may not always analyze how intersecting identities affect outcomes.
• Intersectional Thinking: Embraces and even demands complexity. It starts from the premise that lived experiences and outcomes cannot be understood without recognizing the intersecting structures of power and identity.

3. Social and Ethical Awareness:

• Directional Thinking: Lacks inherent social or ethical considerations, unless these are built into the specific goals.
• Contemporary Thinking: More likely to incorporate social and ethical issues (e.g., diversity, CSR), but not necessarily in a deep, intersectional manner.
• Intersectional Thinking: Built around social and ethical awareness. It seeks to highlight inequalities and propose solutions that address multiple forms of oppression or disadvantage.

4. Application to Society:

• Directional Thinking: Useful for straightforward tasks and measurable goals but risks oversimplifying social issues.
• Contemporary Thinking: Reflects the current context, making it responsive to societal changes, but might still treat issues like inequality as single-axis problems (e.g., focusing only on race or gender, not both together).
• Intersectional Thinking: Essential for addressing deeply rooted social inequalities. It encourages policies and approaches that understand how different forms of discrimination overlap and reinforce each other.

5. Adaptability to Change:

• Directional Thinking: May be resistant to change if it detracts from the primary goal or strategy.
• Contemporary Thinking: Highly adaptive to change but could lack the depth needed to address systemic issues.
• Intersectional Thinking: Necessitates change, as it recognizes that solutions to social problems must evolve as our understanding of oppression and privilege deepens.

Conclusion:

Intersectional thinking adds a deeper layer to both directional and contemporary thinking by focusing on how various identity categories combine to influence outcomes. Where directional thinking is goal-focused and contemporary thinking is adaptive to new ideas, intersectional thinking ensures that social justice, inclusivity, and a nuanced understanding of power dynamics are at the forefront of decision-making. In academia, research, and business, it pushes for policies and practices that not only adapt to modern trends but also address the root causes of systemic inequality by considering the intersections of identity and power.